Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:


Camreta v. Greene

Docket No.: 09-1454
Certiorari Granted: 01/07/11
Argued: April 25, 2011
Decided: 06/06/11
Consolidated with: 09-1478, Alford v. Greene


Article I, Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Mootness, Sixth Amendment, child labor, harmless error, ineffective assistance of counsel, judicial review, patent, privacy, probable cause, public schools, qualified immunity

PartyNames: Bob Camreta v. Sarah Greene, Personally and as Next Friend of S. G., a Minor, and K. G., a Minor
Petitioner: Bob Camreta
Respondent: Sarah Greene, Personally and as Next Friend of S. G., a Minor, and K. G., a Minor

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Citation: 588 F.3d 1011
Supreme Court Docket

Bob Camreta
Sarah Greene, Personally and as Next Friend of S. G., a Minor, and K. G., a Minor
Question Presented:

(1) The state received a report that a nine-year-old child was being abused by her father at home. A child-protection caseworker and law-enforcement officer went to the child's school to interview her. To assess the constitutionality of that interview, the Ninth Circuit applied the traditional warrant/warrant-exception requirements that apply to seizures of suspected criminals. Should the Ninth Circuit, as other circuits have done, instead have applied the balancing standard that this Court has identified as the appropriate standard when a witness is temporarily detained? (2) The Ninth Circuit addressed the constitutionality of the interview in order to provide "guidance to those charged with the difficult task of protecting child welfare within the confines of the Fourth Amendment[,]" and it thus articulated a rule that will apply to all future child-abuse investigations. Is the Ninth Circuit's constitutional ruling reviewable, notwithstanding that it ruled in petitioner's favor on qualified immunity grounds?


Does the Fourth Amendment require a warrant, a court order or parental consent before law enforcement and child welfare officials may conduct a temporary seizure and interview at a public school of a child whom they reasonably suspect was being sexually abused?



Camreta v. Greene


Listen to Oral Argument in Camreta v. Greene
Holding: vacated in part, and remanded
Vote: 7-2
Opinion By: Justice Elena Kagan

Warning: Use of undefined constant caseTitle - assumed 'caseTitle' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /home/supremec/public_html/supremecourtobserver.com/code/sofunctionsndb.php on line 1147

Camreta v. Greene
Case Documents

1Opinion in Camreta v. Greene
2Camreta v. Greene Oral Argument Transcript (HTML)
3Camreta v. Greene Oral Argument Audio
4Camreta v. Greene Oral Argument Audio
5Opinion in Camreta v. Greene
6Camreta v. Greene Oral Argument Transcript (HTML)
Additional documents for this case are pending review.